PC is a bit of an odd ball. In the past it was just Mac and PC (and a bit of Linux) vying for games, yet now with digital stores it's starting to turn into a mess. Win 10 only games, windows store only games, now Epic exclusives and what not. It's all the same platform. Store identity instead of platform identity.

Anyway I didn't like it either when Valkyria Chronicles went handheld only. Franchises switching exclusivity is not very nice.

Exclusives are fine, PC gamers are just the actual definition of 'entitled gamers': though I will confess that at this point new games that release with PS4/Xbox1/PC settings do make me angry, particularly anything made with an engine the switch works (Hello Borderlands 3. Any reason you aren't on the Switch where you could have a fandom that doesn't care about Epic?)

PM sent ~ CGI

I'm used to exclusives being the norm.  Somehow that changed when Microsoft entered as a platform holder.  Then almost every game on Playstation ended up on XBox as well.  I kind of preferred it when consoles were more distinct from each other.  Exclusives are good.

I agree with first part of your comment.

However, your Rise of the Tomb Raider comment is dumb for multiple reason. Primarily the game likely sold a couple million on Xbox, then sold millions more on PS4 and PC. Not only did it not kill the franchise, but they made another game in the series and it seems like it did pretty good. Sales may have declined because Square failed to keep the IP interesting though.

You know which money hat was genuinely terrible for an IP? Street Fighter V. They forced Xbox users to play other fighting games (like SFIV via BC) and maybe Switch users are missing out as well. Although SFV is a disaster for numerous reasons beyond exclusivity, I'm kinda glad that game is something of a failure.

Simply put, there is no benefit to consumers for any flavor of exclusivity. Whereas if all games were available for all platforms it would allow any consumer to consume any game on the platform of their choice.

The answer is yes. Exclusives are pro-producer and anti-consumer. Kinda bewildered that almost 80% of people can't quite wrap their head around such a simple idea.

The matter of exclusivity is complicated where two scenarios could emerge ...

For one, if a trailing platform provider is struggling to maintain it's viability in the current market then acquisitions of intellectual property could certainly help make them more competitive against their competitors and this certainly wouldn't be deemed as anti-consumer for the most part ...

The other scenario is where we have an existing dominant platform provider attempting to consolidate and vertically integrate the entire industry in it's business by buying up as many intellectual properties they can get a hold of which would indeed be anti-consumer since controlling large parts of the value chain would eventually become toxic to the consumer ...

I live and breathe console wars. Exclusive games help boost console sales. The exclusive games that help decide a console sales war generation. Exclusive games encourage consumers to purchase a console system.

Actually Nier Automata was on PC basically at launch - though then again when I say "basically" I mean like 3 weeks later : D 

To a degree.

Not having choices sucks. But I say that it's understandable that someone doesn't want to release their games on their competition's platforms. Also, uncancelling a game from a third party developer by giving them the money needed to make it in return for platform exclusivity (like, say Bayonetta 2/3) is still better than no game at all.

Also, you can't blame a developer who only wants to release his game on a specific platforms, for whatever reasons. For instance, an indie developer who can't afford to port and test their game for multiple platforms, or a PC developer who doesn't port their game to consoles because it's making heavy use of mouse and keyboard and controllers not having enough buttons to keep up. There'it's entirely the developers choice on where they want to sell it, similar to choosing which brick&mortar store(s) you choose your craft to be sold in.

Of course exclusives are anti-consumer. Why would anyone want to be forced into buying a product to play something?
As a share holder it makes more sense to invest into something where products are locked behind a device, this forces a sale.
As a consumer, why would you want to be stuck limited to a device or 2? Why would you want your friends/family locked out of a game unless they own a specific platform?

I think true colours will come out if the same thing was happening against the consumer who had the least popular console. Shoe on the other foot method.

Lets use an example - If the PS5 was the least selling console and Nintendo and Xbox had all the timed exclusives and exclusives, you can bet your mums dog that those PS5 owners will be complaining and not saying "Well fair is fair" nonsense. If MS paid for Street Fighter 6 to be a permanent exclusive to XB2, you can guaranteed an uproar. How many PC gamers are happy that Halo MCC is coming to Steam? How many Switch owners are happy to see Hellblade and Cuphead? These are 1st party IPs (Cuphead 1 is anyway) The industry clearly shows these signs. Its weird that gamers stick up for exclusives, I question that there gamers or something else to be perfectly honest.

I love how people only look at the good and not the bad. Games that fall short on sales expectations and are locked into 1 platform can hurt the businesses and can sometimes cause closures. Look no further than DriveClub, PS4 Exclusive that died. Could have been popular maybe on PC, Switch and Xbox, possibly those extra sales from other platforms might have saved the company and the game.